As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

Click to expand...

but there is more.

Quote

Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors.

Because it's a strategic resource and the past 70 so years Russia hasn't been on our buddy list.

Click to expand...

The question is did the State Department sign off on the deal because the Clinton foundation received donations. The problem isn't the transfer of uranium, as the New York Times notes, "Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department..."

Why is selling a uranium company to Russia an issue? They have thousands of nuclear weapons already...

Click to expand...

Because

NY Times said:

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The question is did the State Department sign off on the deal because the Clinton foundation received donations. The problem isn't the transfer of uranium, as the New York Times notes, "Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department..."

No. There's a difference between reporting facts and taking those facts to make a political argument. Schweizer himself admitted that he made a key error when he reported on Clinton's role in the uranium trade, saying on Fox News that she could have "vetoed" the deal when that was actually not true.

Moreover, though he sells himself as a muckraker, he's an active political operative for the Republican party. He was a speechwriter for the Bush administration, worked for Sarah Palin as a foreign policy advisor, and has received cash infusions for his work from the Koch brothers among others.

And, Schweizer has serious journalistic problems. He's been repeatedly corrected for false reporting, and two reporters from the Sunday Times found that they could not find sources or confirm facts from his book Friendly Spies.

No. There's a difference between reporting facts and taking those facts to make a political argument. Schweizer himself admitted that he made a key error when he reported on Clinton's role in the uranium trade, saying on Fox News that she could have "vetoed" the deal when that was actually not true.

Moreover, though he sells himself as a muckraker, he's an active political operative for the Republican party. He was a speechwriter for the Bush administration, worked for Sarah Palin as a foreign policy advisor, and has received cash infusions for his work from the Koch brothers among others.

And, Schweizer has serious journalistic problems. He's been repeatedly corrected for false reporting, and two reporters from the Sunday Times found that they could not find sources or confirm facts from his book Friendly Spies.

What a load of crap. Peter Schweizer has been a pretty respected investigative journalist for years. I've read a number of his books and they have always been thorough and well researched. The problem here, in case you missed it, is the Clintons have always used their personal relationships and political access to enrich themselves and the Clinton Foundation. They've always played it very close to the line of illegality, and that's when people start asking questions.

As far as Bill, Hillary, and a good many of their supporters like you are concerned, they didn't get arrested so it's all good. Well, it's not. The appearance of impropriety and favoritism makes people stop and ask questions about her judgement. Her less than satisfactory answers calls her veracity into question. The Clintons bring these problems on themselves and hope their supporters give her a pass and look the other way. But the sheer volume of it is making that extremely difficult.

What a load of crap. Peter Schweizer has been a pretty respected investigative journalist for years.

Click to expand...

The Sunday Times concluded that he made up some of his sources and even Schweizer agreed that he made a mistakes.

Quote

...The problem here, in case you missed it, is the Clintons have always used their personal relationships and political access to enrich themselves and the Clinton Foundation. They've always played it very close to the line of illegality, and that's when people start asking questions.

Click to expand...

I agree. The foundation is suspicious as hell and I have real problems with the Clinton's relationships through the foundation, but that doesn't mean that the movie based on Schweizer's book can't be its own bit of propaganda.

Quote

...As far as Bill, Hillary, and a good many of their supporters like you are concerned, they didn't get arrested so it's all good. Well, it's not. The appearance of impropriety and favoritism makes people stop and ask questions about her judgement. Her less than satisfactory answers calls her veracity into question. The Clintons bring these problems on themselves and hope their supporters give her a pass and look the other way. But the sheer volume of it is making that extremely difficult.

The Sunday Times concluded that he made up some of his sources and even Schweizer agreed that he made a mistakes.

I agree. The foundation is suspicious as hell and I have real problems with the Clinton's relationships through the foundation, but that doesn't mean that the movie based on Schweizer's book can't be its own bit of propaganda.

MacRumors attracts a broad audience
of both consumers and professionals interested in
the latest technologies and products. We also boast an active community focused on
purchasing decisions and technical aspects of the iPhone, iPod, iPad, and Mac platforms.